Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Fiji, where the project is proposed, is, listed by Conservation International as being part of the Micronesia-Polynesia biodiversity hot spot. The specific area of the project contains a diversity of ecosystems.
Evidence B:The EOI includes 228 villages in Fiji (Viti Levu) and covers 5,015 square kilometers or 27.4% of the total land area of Fiji. Fiji’s island ecosystems and species are unique, and included in the Micronesia-Polynesia biodiversity hotspot – considered to be one of the most threatened of earth’s 34 biodiversity hotspots. The project area covers significant areas of natural forests and a wide range of marine ecosystems with extensive areas of mangroves and coral reefs. Biodiversity significance of the project area is considered medium-high.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Answer is based on the spatial resource indicator.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: It’s difficult to answer this question for Fiji as most land belongs to Indigenous Fijians but there is a mix of governance systems and the State government is not fully Indigenous.
Evidence B:All categories of land in the proposed project are all ITaukei land, which is the rightful and hereditary property of native owners, within the proposed. All Native land (except Village Reserves) is managed by the ITaukei Land Trust Board (TLTB) and any use of the land requires a lease issued by that Board with approval of the traditional owners.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The proposal gives a general description of the relationship between land and people but is not strong on providing an assessment of the cultural significance of that area. It could have emphasised relationships with totem animals and plants and the relationships between provinces and villages that the project covers.
Evidence B:Significance of the site is explained in the EOI. Villages in the project area have all maintained the structure and cultural traditions of Fiji. For the indigenous Fijians in Fiji land is generally seen as an ancestral trust, which the present generation have to pass over to future generations. Similarly, they maintain a very strong cultural link with land, which is their most valuable heritage. These links are enshrined in relevant legislation and policy, including the Native Lands Act, under which native lands shall be held by native Fijians according to native customs as evidenced by usage and tradition.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The area covered is under high threat due to a range of development pressures including mining, logging, invasive species, poor land use, and coastal exploitation - in addition to climate change.
Evidence B:The project area is subject to a number of threats and these are documented in the EOI. They include: (a) habitat loss within the project site, including loss of mangroves and sea grass; (b) climate change impacts, including coral reef bleaching and decline; and (c) poorly planned and inappropriate development, including commercial development in certain habitats, including mangroves. The root causes of threats to biodiversity vary but are associated with unsustainable land use practices and increasing population.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Communities are nominally in charge of their land and sea but government plays an important role in decision making about land use, and the Department of Environment lacks the resources to assist communities when there are violations of their rights through development projects authorised by the central government.
Evidence B:The EOI notes that native land (except Village Reserves) is managed by the ITaukei Land Trust Board (TLTB) and any use of the land requires a lease issued by that Board with approval of the traditional owners. There are policy frameworks in place which relate to activities in the project area, including legislation and policy under the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, such as the the Fiji 2020 Agriculture Sector Policy Agenda. However there are few existing conservation projects led by IPCL in the proposed project area. The EOI notes that, while IPCL communities participate and take active roles in projects in Fiji, for the most part they are led by local and international NGO’s. There are a limited number of IPCL led projects and these are documented in the EOI. Overall, the EOI indicates that legal and policy frameworks in the project area recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations)
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: IPLC-led conservation in Fiji happens in pockets in the country with the support of NGOs and the National Trust of Fiji. In the area of marine conservation, the Government recognises the important role played by community management. In the case of this project, the support listed is mostly about agriculture and development of crops rather than Indigenous led conservation.
Evidence B:The EOI suggests that national or sub-national governments in Fiji have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation. Government policies and programmes which support the EOI include the Women’s Plan of Action (WPA 2010- 2019), the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise Fiji – Policy Framework - 31 January 2020 and the Fiji 2020 Agriculture Sector Policy Agenda.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: None are listed. The initiatives listed in section 4 are livelihood based initiatives (which are valid but not really about conservation).
Evidence B:The EOI notes there are very few conservation projects led by IPCL in the proposed project area. Further, that, while IPCL communities participate and take active roles in projects in Fiji, for the most part they are led by local and international NGO’s. Locally led projects in the area are documented in the EOI however the project document notes they are extremely limited.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: There are some but none related specifically to conservation.
Evidence B:A number of complementary projects are outlined in the EOI, run by a number of other agencies including a number of Government Ministries. These appear related to EOI project goals
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The project is really about promoting livelihoods and local agriculture to support local communities.
Evidence B:The project appears well aligned with ICI objectives. In particular, the outlined project activities would support the economic and financial sustainability of IPLC-led conservation as well as enhancing IPLC rights and governance of natural resources. Project activities should also improve the management of natural and cultural resources in IPLC lands and territories and address the drivers of environmental degradation in the project site
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: It is not possible to answer this question through the scoring as the project is well described by is really about fostering local agroforestry and small businesses. The conservation component is not itself clear but it does seek to address further environmental degradation by offering development alternatives which are sustainable.
Evidence B:The aim of the project is the establishment of orchards of selected fruit and nut trees in strategic locations to make fruits readily available to locals as well as the tourism industry and for export markets. Activities and results appear well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Again, it’s difficult to answer the scoring as the project will address the threats but not through conservation as such but rather through the promotion of small businesses and livelihood activities which are not conservation focused.
Evidence B:Activities under the project appear to address threats and opportunities, in particular through addressing food security concerns. Further clarification is required, however, on how the threats identified in Section 3 of the EOI are to be specifically addressed through this project.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: it is feasible
Evidence B:Activities/results appear aligned with EoI range of investment
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: It relies on hypothetical commercial and small business funding.
Evidence B:A number of potential sources of co-financing are outlined in the project document. Exact contributions are hard to ascertain from the project document.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: the proposal suggests 200-400 hectares will be converted to agroforestry orchards with endemic species
Evidence B:Direct benefits are outlined but appear low, The EOI notes the total area under improved management through the project will be 200-400 hectares
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: the proposal is strong on livelihood indicators but not on cultural ones.
Evidence B:Indicators proposed appear moderately aligned with project goals. Indicators outlined in the EOI are outlined and relate to community and village health and enhanced capacity building for women in the project area.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The proposed project would have long term benefits for livelihood and improved land use.
Evidence B:The EOI notes that project activities have the ability to become self-funding within 2-3 years through multiple avenues including sale of carbon credits, sales of fruit and nuts, sales of inter-cropped produce. The EOI notes the proposed approach will help build self-reliance, diversify food sources and reduce reliance on imported food products. Overall, it appears this project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The proposal links the project to the NBSAP but its focus is on agroforestry rather than a wider approach to conservation generally.
Evidence B:This program is directly linked, and compatible, with a number of relevant national policies, including the Fiji National Climate Change Policy, the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise Fiji – Policy Framework and the Fiji National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2017–2024 (NBSAP)
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: the proposal is strong in this area
Evidence B:The primary aim of the project is to empower women through increased economic opportunities and strengthen women’s groups and coalitions for change. The Pacific Islands Rainforest Foundation will work towards addressing the gender gap in Fiji by supporting local women’s groups, networks and organizations to plant, manage and market the products of the proposed fruit and nut Agroforestry orchards . PIRF expects to engage with The Australian Government, through Pacific Women to support women’s empowerment in Fiji. Fiji has become a leader in the region for integrating gender mainstreaming into national planning. A gender mainstreaming approach appears well thought through and integrated throughout this EOI.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: the project is not strictly about conservation but rather about livelihoods and improving land use. It’s potential for doing this is demonstrated but it implies relying on the good will of a range of actors including communities and government. The organisation proposing this has been working with communities in this area so seems to have the experience to carry out this project.
Evidence B:The EOI appears to offer moderate potential for large-scale conservation results through investment in IPLC leadership
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: the organisation proposing this project has a mix of Indigenous and non-Indigenous trustees and coordinators, and is working with government ministries and institutions which represent all people of Fiji.
Evidence B:The Pacific Island Rainforest Foundation (PIRF) organization is registered in Fiji under the Fiji Charitable Trusts Act. This EOI is written in consultation with Fiji’s Ministry for i-Taukei Affairs whose mandated role is to ensure the well being and good governance of Fiji’s iTaukei (Indigenous People) population locally and around the globe.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: PIRF has worked in the proposed area in the past on GEF projects, and has the support of the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs which is important for working with villages in Fiji (which are entirely composed of Indigenous Fijians).
Evidence B:The EOI indicates that PIRF has demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The partners listed are all government institutions - again in a Fiji context, government institutions represent the interests of all in Fiji including IPs.
Evidence B:Section 21 indicates that the main partnerships will be with Government Ministries and universities although work will be delivered through village coimmunities.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The lead organisation has the required skills and experience.
Evidence B:Technical capacities of the PIRF are outlined in the EOI and appear adequate. Capacity building plans are outlined.in the EOI.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: 3 criteria met
Evidence B:Moderate capacity is indicated in the EOI
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: No explanation provided
Evidence B:Yes, prior GEF experience is outlined